Eligius pool is back under the new name Ocean

[mikeywith]

Did you know that Ordinal transactions can get a ~75% fee discount from exploiting Taproot OP codes and SegWit?  

Not just Ordinal, every type of transaction could use/abuse/exploit those upgrades to make their transactions smaller in size and thus save on fees, but that does not matter, what matters is sat/Vbyte, so to answer this question

How sure are you that Ordinal transactions make sense to include in blocks economically?

I am not sure, and it does not matter, the transactions that pay the most per the space they use -- make perfect sense to be included, you could argue that Ordinals are spam and should be banned on a protocol/node level, but that would be a different topic to discuss, the majority of miners would want to make the most profit regardless.

I am sure many miners would settle with lower payouts using a pool that does not censor certain transactions (like ditching F2pool for another pool), but settling with less profit due to the censorship of Ordinals isn't going to work, you may get a few miners to side with you on that regard, but I wouldn't be so optimistic, of course, this would also apply to pools that would for example do the opposite, like ban non-Ordinals transactions that pay more just to accept Ordinals that pay less.

[1714518883]

1714518883

[1714518883]

1714518883

[1714518883]

1714518883

[kano]

As for censorship, it is no longer a matter of actual resistance but merely if and when the pools choose to do it there are 11 entities who decide what transactions go in (or stay out) of almost every block, and simply the 2 largest can impose censorship on everyone else with 100% success.

This is funny.

Luke was the first to advocate censorship on a large scale by adding blacklisting of casino addresses - and it also randomly got other addresses.
He put it in the debian PPA and the code even stated it was blacklisting.
So anyone running the debian/ubuntu/whatever release of bitcoin back then was censoring.
After many complaints on the debian dev site it was finally removed.

How sure are you that Ordinal transactions make sense to include in blocks economically?

As stated above, it's core bitcoin's calculation to maximise the block reward.
If you have some baseless conspiracy that bitcoin core code is crap and can't do that - go complain to them.

[alani123]

Yes, anyone can utilize fee discounts, but who's actually going to ABUSE them?
Someone transaction BTC from address A to address B, or someone uploading entire JPEGs on the blockchain?
That's the thing that matters on this issue.

[mikeywith]

That's the thing that matters

It does not, this is what I have been trying to explain all along, this is the mining section where most people are miners who pay bills and invest a lot of money, the majority could not care less if you are transacting btc to buy coffee or to upload some stupid worthless Jpeg.

So miners can't fix this issue because they do not view it as an issue, but rather as a solution to the low income, if you post the same thing in the bitcoin discussion board -- the answers will differ, but again, if this is actually an issue, it needs to addressed before the core devs, miners simply do not care.

And BTW, i do not have a crystal ball but if any pool starts to actually ban Ordinals and start to pay less than other pools that do not, said pool will go broke, i so want to be proven wrong if one of the pools is willing to launch this experiment.

[alani123]

I feel like you're not answering my main question. Maybe I'm dumb, so let me dumb things down (for my own understanding).

On the point of Ordinals making sense to include in blocks:
I presented a transaction where an ordinal gets a 75% discount.

I was then told anyone can utilize these discounts.

But it's only ordinals that utilize the discounts to that extreme by essentially tricking the system.
So tell me in the end, with these massive discounts, does it make more sense financially for a miner to actually include an ordinal inscription or to include non-incription transacitons that don't abuse fee discount mechanisms?

[kano]

I feel like you're not answering my main question. Maybe I'm dumb, so let me dumb things down (for my own understanding).

On the point of Ordinals making sense to include in blocks:
I presented a transaction where an ordinal gets a 75% discount.

I was then told anyone can utilize these discounts.

But it's only ordinals that utilize the discounts to that extreme by essentially tricking the system.
So tell me in the end, with these massive discounts, does it make more sense financially for a miner to actually include an ordinal inscription or to include non-incription transacitons that don't abuse fee discount mechanisms?

How does it get a 75% discount?

All transactions that are not '1' addresses get it - that's what core decided long ago
(for no real good reason other than removal of the witness data made them somewhat smaller)

Though the reality actually is that '1' addresses pay 4 times as much as '3' and 'bc' addresses.
Not the other way around.

Again, core getblocktemplate (used for mining) maximises your block fees gained, on what is available, your supposed discount is irrelevant.

[alani123]

How do some ordinals transactions get a 75% discount?
Idk, maybe you can look at the tx I linked, hover over the green text saying "SegWit" on mempool.space and verify it yourself to tell me as also. (77e996de08c48ed282a7b8bc88ca199712a15fa68babb10a0b3ee760674cf21b)

Do non-ordinal transactions regardless of address type get the same discount? Probably not as they don't throw as much data in the blockhain.

The dynamic that is created here is that you get a transaction that is considered to be paying optimal fees, while actually grossly underpaying for the space it takes in a block.

Look at the stats for the provided transaction:

‎Size          19.99 kB
Virtual size ‎5.07 kvB

75% discount means the one making the inscription actually pays for what can count as an acceptable optimal fee transaction on the Virtual size instead of the actual space it takes.

[mikeywith]

75% discount means the one making the inscription actually pays for what can count as an acceptable optimal fee transaction on the Virtual size instead of the actual space it takes.

OK but what is your argument? here is another random non-Ordinal transaction from the same block the got some good "discount"

77e996de08c48ed282a7b8bc88ca199712a15fa68babb10a0b3ee760674cf21b

had it been non-Segwit, it would have doubled the fees.

Why does it look like the transaction you linked tricked the pool in anyway? it did not, it used segwit+taproot to minimize it's virtual size, it paid 40 sat / Vbyte which was the median fee rate for that block, so he did not outsmart the mining pool, he paid a nice 207,778 sats on a transaction that consumed ‎19.99 kB on the desk, the fee/space checks out, nobody cares if that was a discount, the core code allows them to do so -- so they do it.

So based on this logic, if you ask miners to block those transactions, then they would also block segwit transactions, because without segwit, transactions would take more space and thus increase miners profit, so they would censor P2TR, P2WPKH and force everyone else to back to P2PKH.

Miners do not oppose any protocol upgrades that make transacting on the blockchain cheaper, so nobody should expect them to oppose transactions that pay more, miners would take every sat they can off the table.

Also, keep in mind that most pools use the default getblocktemplate made by core devs, the way it operates is rather simple, it sorts transactions by sat/byte, something like

Code:

bool compareTransactions(const Transaction& a, const Transaction& b) {
    return a.fee_per_byte > b.fee_per_byte;

There is no "transaction type" or "who" is transferring "what", it's all about sats.

[alani123]

I'm not saying that miners should block anything.
Actually, they can do whatever the hell they want.
And that's what has been happening anyway.
In fact there's very little about what we can do about other people's hash power anyway.

But the argument about including ordinals in blocks because it makes the most economic sense doesn't seem to actually make too much sense from what I see.
At a time of high transaction congestion, a block template that made space by excluding ordinals to replace them with many more smaller transactions, would likely get similar or perhaps even higher fee rewards.
So all I'm saying is that in the end it doesn't make much of a difference economically probably.
But I'm not the one that came up with this argument actually, so the burden of proof lies with the accuser.

[mikeywith]

from what I see.
At a time of high transaction congestion, a block template that made space by excluding ordinals to replace them with many more smaller transactions, would likely get similar or perhaps even higher fee rewards.

This is not true, which is what I have been trying to explain to you, I literally gave you the code logic that does the sorting, the number of transactions is irrelevant, it is all about how much they pay per space unit.

You are probably better off with ignoring virtual size, just think of the block as 1MB in size ( that is what it actually is on the desk anyway).

If 1000 transactions each of the size of 1kb and all are paying 1 sat per kb, the total fee reward for the miner would be 1000 sat, if someone else has a transaction size of 1kb and decides to pay 1000 sat per kb, one of those 1000 1 sat guys will need to waite, if comes a guy with a transaction size of 1MB and is paying 1001 sat per kb all those 1 sat guys + the 1000 sat guy will have to wait till the next block.

So it is all about bitcoin spent per space unit ( be it byte or Vbyte), so every transaction that gets included always makes economical sense.

[kano]

... this on and on going 'but but but what about the discount' ...

It's quite clear from the start that there's no special discount for 'ordinal' transactions, they pay as much per space as any other non '1' output transaction.
Bitcoin tries over and over and over again to maximise the fees received (there's a loop that tries a lot to do it) and ensure you get the most per block.
There is no special 'ordinal' transaction discount.

An 'ordinal' transaction is just a transaction, like any other.
The problem with 'ordinal' transactions is that they use a flaw in taproot to make very large transactions of whatever data you like.
If you pay a lot (per space) to put it in a block, it will win out against transactions that pay less (per space) to be in the block, if there's enough space left over after filling it with all the higher paying transactions.
In fact since they are so large, and due to the above, they may not make it into a block and there may be a bunch of lower paying transactions in the block with total space less than the 'ordinal' transaction.

I highly suggest he go read the code rather than believe some random person who told him about some 'special' ordinal discount.

Or I could point directly to where I made the mistake of thinking there was an issue and a number of people jumped at me pointing out I was wrong
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437464.msg61863960#msg61863960

[stompix]

Look at the stats for the provided transaction:

‎Size          19.99 kB
Virtual size ‎5.07 kvB

75% discount means the one making the inscription actually pays for what can count as an acceptable optimal fee transaction on the Virtual size instead of the actual space it takes.

No it doesn't mean that!
To have a 75% discount he would need to pay less per sat/vb than the others by 75%, which is not happening.

People sending 1 billion BTC in a tx don't have a discount on those that send half a coin.
People that cram 100 t-shirts in their luggage don't have a discount over the guy who puts in their already inflated sex doll.

At a time of high transaction congestion, a block template that made space by excluding ordinals to replace them with many more smaller transactions, would likely get similar or perhaps even higher fee rewards.

Hihi, please to elaborate how
-replacing a tx of 5kvb that pays 50sat/vb would fetch more than 10 tx of 0.5kwb paying 45sat/vb
-also, how in name of god would a tx that pays more in fees not be already included in a block before of an ordinal that pays less per sat/vb

Surely plenty of miners would probably be on board in creating block templates that would not include Ordinal transactions.

Ya, good luck finding miners who would leave money on the table.
~
It does not, this is what I have been trying to explain all along, this is the mining section where most people are miners who pay bills and invest a lot of money, the majority could not care less if you are transacting btc to buy coffee or to upload some stupid worthless Jpeg.

I'm pretty sure that the guys who told us we need to keep nodes requirement as small as possible to run on every computer as cheaply as possible are going to start saying we need each bitcoiner to host some 10kw $20k machines in their bedroom for the sake of decentralization. 
Everything around the forum lately is just popcorn material! Oh, sorry, fudgeee!

[alani123]

Are we not counting transaction fee discounts as discounts now?
I thought it was pretty standard bitcoin functionality by now, enough for most users to understand how they work.

For taking more block space, these transactions pay less fees (by the actual space). They unit is called vBytes because the fee is accounted in VIRTUAL bytes.
So, if that's not a discount, what should we rename this as?

[mikeywith]

Everything around the forum lately is just popcorn material! Oh, sorry, fudgeee!

oh boy, tell me about it, I just had a 3-4 day long debate on repution last week (in case anyone missed me here) . I hate debates.

Are we not counting transaction fee discounts as discounts now?

You could call them whatever you want, it doesn't change the answer to your initial and main question which was/ still is

How sure are you that Ordinal transactions make sense to include in blocks economically?

For taking more block space, these transactions pay less fees (by the actual space). They unit is called vBytes because the fee is accounted in VIRTUAL bytes.
So, if that's not a discount, what should we rename this as?

Ok, we have to stop here, at this point, I can't help but think that there is a major misunderstanding at the core of this topic, you are confusing two things, block weight and block size.

When Segwit/Block weight came into existing (bip 141 IIRC), the introduction of a new "way" to measure segwit transaction was introduced, and it's a simple formula;

Code:

Transation size with witness data stripped * 3 + (Transation size)

In plain English, the segwit upgrade added another 3MB which could only be facilitated by witness data, so a non-segiwt block will still be capped by 1MB, so in theory a 100% segwit block could have the size of 4MB which is 4vM or 4M weigh units.

Nowadays, the VAST majority of transactions are segwit, which means, almost everyone using BTC is getting what you call a "discount", so everyone is using/abusing those 3MB added by the core devs.

So now we need to think of a Bitcoin block as 2 disks in 1, something like a bus where the bus cabin has a max capacity of 1000KG worth of people, and 3000KG in the luggage compartment, of course, people are free to cut their hands and put them in the compartment to spend less on those limited 1000KG,

Now if someone is pretty fat and weighs 1000KG and isn't willing to cut any of that fat to put it in the luggage compartment to allow other people to ride with him, that person will need to pay for the 1000KG + the 3000KG luggage compartment.

I like this analogy so let me keep going;

if that fat ass offers the bus driver 1k for the ride but then come 50 people who weigh 80KG each (4000KG in total) and are willing to cut 3000KG of their body parts to send it to the luggage compartment, each of them offered to pay only $40, the bus driver will then collect $2000, so he would pick these people first because he makes an extra $1000 in profit.

The bus driver here does not care about how the bus is going to be filled, he just runs a simple code that picks the best combination of people that would give him the highest reward for the trip, it could be 5 fat people or 500 apes who could squeeze themselves in and pay more per KG, he just couldn't give a flying fudge.

[HmmMAA]

Well , looks like finally ocean established it's position on filtering transactions .

"We are happy to announce testing of Bitcoin Knots v25.1 has completed successfully, and is now deployed to production. Among other improvements, this upgrade fixes this long-standing vulnerability exploited by modern spammers. As a result, our blocks will now include many more real transactions and help to bring an end to the DoS attack being performed on the #Bitcoin network."

https://twitter.com/ocean_mining/status/1732207450114162855?s=20

[alani123]

Well , looks like finally ocean established it's position on filtering transactions .

"We are happy to announce testing of Bitcoin Knots v25.1 has completed successfully, and is now deployed to production. Among other improvements, this upgrade fixes this long-standing vulnerability exploited by modern spammers. As a result, our blocks will now include many more real transactions and help to bring an end to the DoS attack being performed on the #Bitcoin network."

https://twitter.com/ocean_mining/status/1732207450114162855?s=20

Luke and the team essentially said that the first two blocks including inscriptions was due to not having the filtering fully in place, but it is the intention nevertheless. So the next block will probably be ok without inscriptions if all goes according to the team's plan.

On the plus side, Luke's comments on the matter have been gathering a lot of positive attention. Many people seem to be looking forward for the next Bitcoin Core release to block filter Ordinals entirely after Luke said it's possible:


Via https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/1732204937466032285

Look at all these retweets and likes this tweet has.

[HmmMAA]

On the plus side, Luke's comments on the matter have been gathering a lot of positive attention. Many people seem to be looking forward for the next Bitcoin Core release to block filter Ordinals entirely after Luke said it's possible:

Via https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/1732204937466032285

Look at all these retweets and likes this tweet has.

Yep , Luke knows better what's the network's purpose and that's just financial transactions , ability only to send and receive money . I wonder why satoshi in the whitepaper referenced those two whitepapers if bitcoin was solely intented for financial transactions and nothing else .
 
[3] S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, "How to time-stamp a digital document," In Journal of Cryptology, vol 3, no 2, pages 99-111, 1991.
[4] D. Bayer, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, "Improving the efficiency and reliability of digital time-stamping," In Sequences II: Methods in Communication, Security and Computer Science, pages 329-334, 1993.



Not to mention his genesis block message , making him the first "spammer" ( according to your definition of spam ) .

Really liked the last sentence of yours , twitter likes and retweets that shows how much approved Luke's tweet is . I have to admit , i lol'd hard . Thanks for that laugh .

PS . Anyone know if Luke finally ate a cat ? Or a dog ?  https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1169615995742380035 . One the most sane people you should follow
      

[cryptosize]

PS . Anyone know if Luke finally ate a cat ? Or a dog ?  https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1169615995742380035 . One the most sane people you should follow

I'm honestly surprised you know every gossip in the Bitcoin town.

[mikeywith]

On the plus side, Luke's comments on the matter have been gathering a lot of positive attention. Many people seem to be looking forward for the next Bitcoin Core release to block filter Ordinals entirely after Luke said it's possible:

How about all the negative attention and the people who are looking forward to disabling the filtering of Ordinals if it becomes the default setting for new core versions, I am sure you will find many of those in the same place you found all the positive attention.

Also, I would like to know the reason behind moving your other thread to archive, I believe it was an insertings discussion that should have stayed on the mining board.

[alani123]

On the plus side, Luke's comments on the matter have been gathering a lot of positive attention. Many people seem to be looking forward for the next Bitcoin Core release to block filter Ordinals entirely after Luke said it's possible:

How about all the negative attention and the people who are looking forward to disabling the filtering of Ordinals if it becomes the default setting for new core versions, I am sure you will find many of those in the same place you found all the positive attention.

Nothing happens without consequence. It will be very interesting to see how things turn out an if the people following ordinals try to fin workarounds if Core happens to follow this path.

Also, I would like to know the reason behind moving your other thread to archive, I believe it was an insertings discussion that should have stayed on the mining board.

The answer is more boring that one might guess. I wear a signature on my profile which the pool admins might not like so I decided to voluntarily delete my thread to allow them to post their thread on their own, if they want.
I think they will do it sooner than later. Luke is one of the first users of this forum so he knows how to deal with that stuff.